( 2025:HHC:35446 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.5837 of 2019 Decided on:14.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rudri Dutt ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Ms. Kamlesh Shandil, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Rudri Dutt, a Beldar, has come up before this Court seeking the following relief(s): (i). That the respondents may also be directed to considered the case of the applicant regularization after completion of 8 years in services w.e.f 13.08.2006 as per the policy of the State Government with all consequential benefits and thereafter, after completion of 8 years service on daily wage basis, the respondents may be directed to regularized the services of the applicant as per the policy of the State Government from the due date i.e w.e.f 13.08.2006 the day on which he has completed 8 year services on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 2 - daily wages basis with all consequential benefits with interest @ 18% till actual realization; (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to superannuate the applicant on completion of 60 years of age and not at the age of 58.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in IPH Sub Division Nuradhar in the year 1994 and his services were disengaged in July 1996, against which, the petitioner filed an Original Application No. 1312 of 1997, which was dismissed on 24.06.1998 [Annexure A-1] but with the directions to the State Authorities to re-engage the petitioner as per seniority and then too and when, the job work was available in the Department. It is averred that the petitioner was re-engaged in the year 1998 and he had rendered continuous service with more than 240 days in each calendar year since the year 1999 and despite completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service in the year 2006, the respondents regularized the petitioner as Beldar on 23.03.2011 [Annexure A-4 colly]. In this background it is averred that non grant of regularization ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 3 - or work charge status from the date of completion 08 years of continuous service has deprived the petitioner of the benefit of pay in regular pay scale as is being granted upon regularization or conferment of work charge status from due date with effect from 01.01.2007, with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES: 3. Respondents have filed Reply-Affidavit of Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle Nahan on 02.01.2016. 3(i) Pursual of Reply-Affidavit admits in Para-3 that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in 1998 and had rendered more than 240 days of continuous service from 1999 as per the mandays chart [Annexure R-1]. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner completed 08 years of continuous service as on 31.12.2006 and his services were regularized as per the existing policy on 24.03.2011 [Annexure A-4]. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was not regularized earlier, on the ground that petitioner did not produce the educational qualification certificate during the year 2006 which was ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 4 - produced subsequently and upon receipt of documents, the petitioner was regularized on 24.03.2011 [Annexure A-4]. Reply-Affidavit indicates that work charge status was not accorded as work charge establishment, in case of Beldars was abolished on 12.12.2005. In this backdrop, a prayer is made for dismissal of the writ petition. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. In rebuttal, the petitioner contends that abolition of work charge status for Class-IV category on 12.12.2005, shall not have any effect on the conferment of work charge status to the petitioner. 5. Heard, Ms. Kamlesh Shandil, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents and have gone through the material on record. ANALYSIS: 6. At the very out set, Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that though the petitioner has prayed for larger relief of granting regularization from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 5 - but in view of the subsequent pronunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani & Anr. along with connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025 the petitioner may be granted lesser relief of work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily waged service. [Statement Taken on Record]. 6(i) Admittedly, the issue regarding entitlement of daily wagers for work charge status and the issue as to whether such grant of work charge status shall entitle an employee for consequential benefits or notional benefits stands adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani [supra] entitling the daily wages for work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service but by limiting the relief only to “notional benefits” in the following terms:- 5. The workers who had been regularized in service in the Public Health Department under various schemes announced by the State Government from time to time but had not been granted the status of “work-charged” had approached ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 6 - the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by opining as under: “6. The simple question is whether the delay defeats justice? In analyzing the above issue, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioners are only class-IV workers (Beldars). The schemes announced by the Government clearly provided that the department concerned should consider the workmen concerned for bringing them on the work charged category. So, there is an obligation cast on the department to consider the cases of the daily waged workmen for conferment of the work-charged status, being on a work-charged establishment, on completion of the required number of years in terms of the policy. At the best, the petitioners can only be denied the interest on the eligible benefits and not the benefits as such, which accrued on them as per the policy and under which policy, the department was bound to confer the status, subject to the workmen satisfying the required conditions. 7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of workcharged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 7 - charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the work- charged status of the establishment.” 6. The aforesaid order came to be affirmed by this Court in Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 33570 of 2010 and all connected matters were disposed of on 15.01.2015. Later, certain workers who had been engaged on daily wage basis in Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, after having completed eight years of continuous service prayed for conferment of work-charged status by filing O.A. No. 412 of 2016 before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Their prayer was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.06.2016. Upon challenging the same by the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 of 2016 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Kumar the High Court, relying upon its judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2009 titled as Ravi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 14.12.2009, maintained the order of the Tribunal. The order of the High Court in Ashwani Kumar (Supra) has also been affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar by order dated 22.07.2019, ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 8 - wherein this Court observed as under: “3. We are not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal, which was affirmed by the High Court, with respect to the conferral of the status of the work charge from 01.01.2003. However, as regularization has been made only in the year 2006, obviously, notional benefit could have to be granted as the petition was initially filed in the year 2013. 4. Thus, we make the modification that the respondent would be entitled only for notional benefits of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, the appeal is disposed of.” 7. In this factual scenario, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the contention of the learned senior counsel and learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh. Inasmuch as the issue involved in these appeals has been laid to rest by this Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra). That apart, this Court, while examining a similar plea in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 disposed of on 22.07.2019, has specifically addressed this issue by arriving at a conclusion ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 9 - that the order of the Tribunal directing conferment of ‘work charge status’ on completion of eight (08) years of service, did not suffer from any infirmity and it was reiterated order of the Tribunal was just and proper. 8. However, in order to allay the apprehension of the State as expressed thereunder and to safeguard the interest of the State which otherwise would have burdened the exchequer with extra benefits being conferred on the employees who had not been regularly appointed, this Court has, as a succor to the State, restricted the claim or, in other words, modified the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners/appellants therein would be entitled to the notional benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly disposed of the said appeal. 9. It would not be out of context to refer at this juncture itself that the State, in its wisdom, having felt that the subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented, would alter the situation and, therefore, order dated 12.04.1994 passed in Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s (Supra) case has to be modified, had approached this Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being IA No. 3 in the year 2005 in the aforesaid Mool Raj ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 10 - Upadhyaya’s case, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 787 of 1987. A perusal of the said application and the averments made thereunder would clearly indicate that the very same contentions urged, pleas advanced and arguments put forth today before us were the ones which were urged/raised in the said application. Though Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the State would fairly submit that the said application was withdrawn on the ground of subsequent schemes having been formulated and implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh, but we are unable to accept the said proposition howsoever attractive it may be, for the simple reason that the said application was dismissed simpliciter as withdrawn. Yet another factor which sways our mind to reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State would be the fact that the State having accepted the judgment of Ashwani Kumar (Supra), has implemented the same and it is in this background, the High Court in the impugned order has observed that the State cannot adopt pick and choose policy. 10. For the cumulative reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the dicta laid down by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019 in Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case which is based on the ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 11 - judgment of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (Supra) holds the field and would also be applicable to the Respondents herein who had approached the Tribunal or the High Court seeking similar relief. As such, the Respondents shall be entitled for grant of ‘work-charged’ status from the date of completion of 8 years of service. However, we hold that the relief in the present appeals will be limited to notional benefits as explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of Ashwani Kumar’s (Supra) case in Civil Appeal No(s). 5753 of 2019 and the present appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 11. We also make it explicitly clear that the State in its endeavour of implementing the orders of the Tribunal, High Court or this Court, if having paid the amounts in excess, would be at liberty to take such steps as it deems fit without insisting for one time recovery. 12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. 7. For the aforesaid claim Learned State Counsel ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 12 - states that the judgment in rem of Surajmani [supra], is a judgement in case, conferring work charge status with notional benefits only. In these circumstances, the entitlement of the petitioner for work charge status from the date of completion of 08 years of continuous service with notional benefits, in terms of the judgment in the case of Surajmani [supra] is affirmed. However, the consequential benefits/ reliefs shall accrue notionally in view of the fact that the judgement of this Court in CWP No.3111 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others versus Ashwani Kumar, decided on 10.05.2018, affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 5753 of 2019 mandating that the abolition or conversion of work charge establishment shall not have any effect on conferment of work charge status to daily wagers in Respondents’ State, which was a mere grant of better incentives in the form of pay in the regular time scale. Once the judgement in the case of Ashwani Kumar [supra] stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Surajmani ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 13 - & Anr. along with connected matters, decided on 06.02.2025, therefore, the claim for work charge status has merit. 8. Another prayer made by the petitioner relates to the claim that once the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in 1998 and had rendered continuous service from 1999 then, the petitioner has right to continue in service upto the age of 60 years as per the mandate of Full Bench of this Court, in case CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, decided on 22.02.2022, by placing reliance on the findings in Para 7(ii) and (iii), in the following terms:- “ii) Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand’s case, i.e. date of regularization of Class IV daily wager whether prior or ater 10.05.201, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the decisive factor. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2021, the Class-IV employee will ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 14 - continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2021, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. iii) There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2021, but regularized after 10.05.2021 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly. For the aforesaid claim, Learned State Counsel is not in a position to dispute the right of the petitioner for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years, ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 15 - in view of the fact that the material on record establishes that the petitioner was engaged and had rendered continuous service from 1999, which is prior to cut-off date i.e. 10.05.2001 and was regularized thereafter. That being so, once the petitioner was daily wager since 1999 prior to 10.05.2001 and was regularized on 23.03.2011, then, in terms of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev [supra], the petitioner is entitled for continuity in the service upto the age of 60 years instead of 58 years, but since the petitioner has not actually worked from the date of attaining of 58 years on 31.08.2015 upto age of 60 years as 31.08.2017, the petitioner entitled for promotional benefits but the actual benefits, under this head shall accrue from 01.09.2017 with consequential benefits. DIRECTIONS: 9. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded here-in-above the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms :- (i) State Authorities are directed to grant the work charge status to the petitioner as Beldar with effect from ( 2025:HHC:35446 ) - 16 - the date of completion of 08 years of continuous daily wage service w.e.f 01.01.2007 in terms of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Surajmani [supra]; (ii) State Authorities shall confer work charge status from due date but relief shall be limited to “ notional benefits” in terms of the judgement in the case of Surajmani [supra]; without past arrears to the petitioner; (iii) State Authorities are directed to treat the petitioner to be in deemed service upto the age of 60 years (i.e. 31.08.2017) in terms of the Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Baldev [supra]; (iv) State Authorities shall grant consequential benefits as per the judgment in case of Baldev [supra] w.e.f 01.09.2017 including revised retiral benefits, with all consequential benefits; (v) Costs made easy for respective parties. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge October 14, 2025 [G.M]